UC-NRLF 


63o  CONGRESS  1  e™j  A  TT?  \  DOCUMENT? 

3d  Session     }  b^NATE  -j    Na  985 


THE  PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT 

AS  A  SUBSTITUTE  FOR  THE 

DIRECT  PRIMARY 


ADDRESS 


BEFORE  THE 

NATIONAL  POPULAR  GOVERNMENT  LEAGUE 

AT  THE  SECOND  NATIONAL  CONFERENCE 

HELD  IN  WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

ON  JANUARY  4,  1915 

DELIVERED  BY 

LEWIS  JEROME  JOHNSON 

PROFESSOR  CIVIL  ENGINEERING,  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY 


PRESENTED  BY  MR.  OWEN 
FEBRUARY  13,  1915.— Referred  to  the  Committee  on  Printing 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1915 


BEPOBTED  BY  MB.  FLETCHEB. 

IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

March  3,  1915. 

Resolved,  That  the  manuscript  submitted  by  Mr.  Owen  on  February 
13, 1915,  entitled  "The  preferential  ballot  as  a  substitute  for  the  direct 
primary,"  by  Lewis  Jerome  Johnson,  be  printed  as  a  Senate  document. 
Attest: 

JAMES  M.  BAKEK, 

Secretary. 
2 


THE  PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT  AS  A  SUBSTITUTE  FOR 
THE  DIRECT  PRIMARY.1 


Two  essentials  for  securing  the  right  kind  of  elective  official  are 
(1)  proper  office-holding  conditions  and  (2)  proper  election  proce- 
dure. The  former,  through  concentration  of  authority,  longer  terms, 
better  salaries,  and  other  modern  steps,  appears  to  be  in  a  fair  way 
to  realization  and  can,  for  the  purposes  of  this  address,  be  dismissed 
with  this  brief  mention.  The  importance  of  proper  election  proce- 
dure is,  however,  still  insufficiently  understood  and  emphasized. 
For  that  reason,  no  doubt,  and  because  there  are  hopeful  new  methods 
to  report  with  a  distinct  bearing  upon  the  direct  primary,  I  have  been 
invited  to  address  you  to-day. 

We  must  distinguish  at  the  outset  between  the  two  essentially 
different  steps  in  an  election,  viz:  (1)  Nomination,  by  which  the 
candidate  is  put  into  the  running,  and  (2)  the  final  selection  of  the 
winner  from  among  the  candidates.  The  primary,  when  it  exists, 
may  be  regarded  as  associated  with  either  of  these  steps;  their  essen- 
tially separate  character  is,  nevertheless,  clear. 

It  will  be  agreed,  I  believe,  that  the  purpose  of  the  ordinary  elec- 
tion is  to  select  some  one  acceptable  to  the  majority  sentiment  and, 
so  far  as  may  be,  the  one  most  acceptable  of  all.  It  will  help  us  to 
see  our  usual  methods  in  a  clearer  lignt  if  we  stop  a  moment  to  think 
out  on  what  lines  the  selection  obviously  should  be  made. 

Ought  we  not  make  nominations  as  easy  as  possible?  Is  not  this 
clearly  the  way  to  give  a  wide  field  of  choice  and  to  make  it  most 
probable  that  the  list  will  include  some  good  candidates  ?  Ought  we 
not  then  set  the  standard  of  election  high,  and  require  the  clearest 

S3ssible  evidence  that  the  winner  is  acceptable  to  the  majority? 
r,  better  yet,  that  he  is  that  one  of  the  nominees  who  is  most  accept- 
able to  the  majority  if  any  way  can  be  devised  to  identify  him? 

In  a  word,  ought  we  not  open  the  door  wide  for  nominations  but 
set  as  high  a  standard  as  possible  for  elections  ? 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  what  do  we  do  ?  We  do  the  very  reverse.  We 
make  nominations  difficult  and  leave  elections  to  the  haphazard  ver- 
dict of  the  raw  plurality  system — a  system  in  which  the  standard  of 
election  goes  lower  and  lower  as  the  number  of  strong  candidates 
increases  and  in  which  that  standard  may  prove  to  be  disastrously 
low  if  the  number  of  candidates  reaches  even  three.  It  is  to  meet 
these  very  dangers  that  we  have  felt  driven  to  lay  heavy  restrictions 
on  nominations.  Our  familiar  plurality  system  is  thus  seen  in  its 

i  The  text  of  this  paper  is,  to  a  large  extent,  identical  with  one  presented  by  the  same  author  to  the 
National  Municipal  League  at  Toronto  .Nov.  14, 1913. 

3 


424424 


BALLOT. 

true  light  as"  tire*  "b'asfc"  "weakness'  6f*  "the  whole  procedure.  Before 
turning  to  the  remedy,  however,  it  will  be  well  to  observe  just  how 
our  customary  procedure  operates  to  defeat  the  public  interest.  It 
produces  a  chain  of  evils.  Heavy  restrictions  upon  nominations 
make  a  nomination  a  valuable  political  asset,  especially  if  it  carries 
with  it  the  party  label;  the  standard  of  election  being  low,  a  nomina- 
tion backed  by  any  considerable  organization  may  mean  an  election 
and  a  chance  to  dispense  favors;  the  control  of  nominations  becomes 
an  irresistible  invitation  to  professional  politics;  the  candidates  be- 
come, many  or  all  of  them,  mere  conveniences  of  the  party  or  other 
special  organizations.  The  quality  as  well  as  the  number  of  candi- 
dates tends  downward  and  victory  goes  to  the  largest  single  group  of 
voters  regardless  of  whether  it  is  a  majority  or  could  reasonably  be 
regarded  as  representative  of  the  majority  interest.  The  more  candi- 
dates the  smaller  the  group,  other  things  being  equal,  required  to 
win.  A  selfish  minority  thus  frequently  defeats  a  more  public- 
spirited  majority,  simply  because  the  latter,  being  composed  of  think- 
ing, self-respecting,  relatively  independent-minded  voters,  are  less 
readily  marslialed  to  act  as  a  unit.  They  are  easy  victims  of  the  policy 
of  divide  and  conquer,  which  the  old  plurality  system  invites  and 
fosters.  Their  ineffectiveness  and  apathy  in  public  affairs  are  as 
easy  to  account  for  as  they  are  proverbial.  They  are  playing  against 
loaded  dice  whenever  they  enter  a  contest.  Their  prospects  of  vic- 
tory, at  the  best  abnormally  poor,  are  still  further  diminished  because 
this  very  fact  tends  to  discourage  hearty  effort.  Their  invitation  to 
trouble  is  complete  and  the  invitation  rarely  goes  begging. 

A  modern  instance  or  two  may  be  worth  citing  here. 

The  nomination  of  Roger  C.  Sullivan  for  the  United  States  Senate 
in  the  recent  Illinois  primaries  was  in  the  face  of  a  majority  even  of 
that  portion  of  his  party  who  voted  in  the  primary — a  divided  major- 
ity to  be  sure,  but  one  that  may  none  the  less  have  been  unalterably 
opposed  to  his  nomination.  The  final  election  for  this  office  was  won 
by  a  candidite,  Mr.  Sherman,  with  only  39  per  cent  of  the  vote  of  the 
State  behind  him.  The  majority  of  the  State  may  have  been  decid- 
edly opposed  to  Mr.  Sherman.  There  is  reason  to  think  they  were. 

The  election  of  Mr.  Penrose  to  the  United  States  Senate  in  the  last 
election  was  also  in  the  face  of  a  majority  of  the  voters  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, who  probably  were  unalterably  opposed  to  his  election. 

Such  instances  might  be  multiplied  indefinitely.  They  are  part  of 
our  present  gross  travesty  on  representative  government.  What  can 
be  more  obstructive  to  progress  toward  free  institutions  than  the 
spectacle  of  a  people  of  a  great  city  or  a  great  State  forced  by  the 
clumsiness  of  their  own  election  methods  into  being  ''represented" 
by  a  man  whom  they  plainly  do  not  want  and  who  is  by  character, 
nature,  and  surroundings  quite  incapable  of  truly  representing  them  ? 

This  is  not  saying,  of  course,  that  the  old  plurality  system  always 
yields  a  bad  result,  even  when  the  winner  appears  to  have  a  large 
majority  against  him.  He  may  at  times  even  then  be  the  one  on 
whom  a  majority  would  actually  and  gladly  unite  if  given  a  full 
and  free  choice.  But  it  is  clearly  no  adequate  defense  of  that  system 
that  it  sometimes  gives  good  results  or  sometimes  reflects  the  majority 


THE   PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT.  5 

will.  As  much  might  be  said  of  making  officials  a  matter  of  heredity 
or  of  lot. 

Bad  as  is  the  plurality  system  in  elections,  it  is  perhaps  more  dan- 
gerous still  in  the  direct  primary.  Whoever  else  may  appear  at  the 
primary,  those  with  axes  to  grind  are  pretty  sure  to  be  there  to  a  man, 
and  of  these  the  largest  single  faction,  or  plurality  ^  is  more  than  likely 
to  be  machine  ridden.  A  minority  goes  to  the  primary.  A  minority 
of  that  minority  is  more  than  likely  to  carry  the  primary.  A  nomi- 
nation is  made  by  a  minority  of  the  minority  because  the  procedure 
divides  the  majority.  The  party  label  is  thus  captured  for  some 
machine  candidate,  as  readily  as  of  old,  perhaps,  and  with  less  of 
that  sense  of  responsibility  which  sometimes  exercises  wholesome 
restraint  upon  a  party  management.  The  party  as  a  whole,  when  it 
comes  to  election,  meekly  votes  for  the  party  label  and  the  damage  is 
done.  The  direct  primary  looks  like  a  failure  and,  worse  yet,  the 
whole  forward  movement  with  which  it  is  identified  naturally  drops 
in  public  confidence.  If  primaries  are  to  be  retained,  they  plainly 
can  not  be  left  to  the  tender  mercies  of  the  old  plurality  system. 
The  immediate  necessity  is  an  improved  system  of  choosing  from  a 
number  of  candidates  whether  for  nomination  or  for  election.  Such 
a  system  may  be  made  a  part  of  the  primary;  it  may,  better  yet, 
render  the  primary  superfluous  and  obsolete. 

The  need  of  a  better  system  of  choosing  from  a  list  of  candidates 
has  been  the  subject  of  desultory  academic  discussion  for  decades, 
but  the  topic  has  attracted  little  attention  in  practical  politics  in  this 
country  till  within  the  last  four  or  five  years.  In  this  period  the 
country  has  been  finding  in  the  Bucklin  system  of  preferential  vot- 
ing— as  I  believe  the  Grand  Junction  system,  shorn  of  nonessentials, 
should  be  called — something  worth  serious  and  rapidly  increasing 
attention. 

It  is  a  system  at  once  simple  and  easily  explained.  The  ballot  is 
easily  understood,  easily  voted,  and  easily  counted.  It  appeals  to 
voters  as  something  that  should  materially  lighten  the  task  of  attract- 
ing desirable  candidates  into  the  field,  should  materially  improve  the 
prospect  of  securing  officials  loyal  to  the  majority  interest,  and  should 
eliminate  a  lot  of  vexatious  and  superfluous  politics.  Such  little 
theoretical  objection  as  is  raised  against  it,  stated  below  in  the 
explanation  of  the  system,  arises  from  something  which  makes  the 
system  even  better  suited  than  otherwise  to  protect  the  general 
interest  against  cliques,  machines,  and  special  interests. 

In  a  word,  the  Bucklin  system  is  so  much  better  adapted  to 
present-day  conditions  than  anything  else  either  in  use  or  in  sight 
that  voters  take  to  it  with  enthusiasm,  and  are  rapidly  putting  it 
into  effect.  It  looks  now  as  if  the  Bucklin  system  were  about  to 
sweep  the  country — at  least,  for  city  elections — as  did  the  Australian 
ballot,  on  which  it  is  based.  Its  claim  upon  our  attention  as  an 
essential  safeguard  to  direct  primaries  is,  for  reasons  above  stated, 
as  strong  as  for  its  use  for  any  other  purpose.  In  Cleveland  and  else- 
where it  has  done  better  yet,  it  has  supplanted  the  primary.  The 
question,  then,  suggests  itself,  If  a  large  city  like  Cleveland  can  get 
nd  of  the  primaries,  why  can  not  States?  They  doubtless  can  and 
will,  particularly  after  the  way  has  been  smoothed  by  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  short  ballot,  or  coincidentally  with  its  adoption. 


6  THE   PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT. 

EXPLANATION   OF    BUCKLIN    SYSTEM. 

The  Bucklin  system,  as  I  am  using  the  term  in  recognition  of  the 
Hon.  James  W.  Bucklin,  of  Grand  Junction,  Colo.,  who  originated  it 
and  got  it  into  use,  is  the  Grand  Junction  system  minus  all  dropping 
of  "low  men"  and  minus  the  stipulation  that  one  of  each  list  of  can- 
didates must  be  left  unvoted  for. 

The  system  may  be  briefly  described  as  follows:1  The  ballot  shown 
herewith,  marked  as  it  might  be  by  a  modern  voter  of  progressive 
type,  differs  from  the  familiar  Australian  form  simply  in  having 
three  columns  at  the  right  of  the  names  for  crosses  instead  of  only 
one  such  column. 

A  voter  marks  his  first  choice  by  placing  a  cross  in  the  first  or  left 
hand  of  these  columns  opposite  his  first-choice  candidate's  name  and, 
if  he  wishes,  a  second  choice  by  a  similar  cross  in  the  second  column, 
and  as  many  other  choices  as  he  desires  (without  attempting  to 
grade  them)  2  by  additional  crosses  in  the  third  or  right-hand  col- 
umn, but  only  one  choice  will  be  counted  for  any  one  candidate.  If 
a  candidate  receives  a  majority  of  the  first  choices,  he  is  elected;  if 
not,  the  first  and  second  choices  for  each  candidate  are  added 
together.3  The  man  then  highest  wins,  provided  he  has  that  major- 
ity; if  no  one  thus  receives  a  majority,  all  three  choices  for  each 
candidate  are  added  together 3  and  the  highest  man  wins  whether 
he  has  a  majority  or  not.  This,  with  elimination  of  the  primary 
election,  insures  either  that  the  man  elected  is  either  the  choice  of  a 
majority  of  the  voters,  or  is  the  man  among  the  nominees  command- 
ing the  largest  following  of  all  after  a  free  and  full  expression  of 
choice  by  the  voters.  In  fact,  there  will  be  a  majority  of  the  voters 
behind  the  winner,  unless  the  list  of  nominees  contains  no  one  who 
can  command  a  majority.  Then  we  have  the  next  best  thing,  and 
probably  the  best  possible  with  that  list  of  nominees. 

1  For  complete  details  of  a  suitable  charter  phrasing  for  the  Bucklin  system  see  appendix. 

z  Of  course,  the  voter  is  expected  to  express  choices  only  for  such  candidates  as  he  would  be  willing  to 
help  elect.  Unknown  or  undesirable  candidates  he  should,  of  course,  leave  wholly  unvoted  for,  as  with 
our  familiar  Australian  ballot. 

» Herein  lies  the  sole  theoretical  objection  to  the  Buoklin  system  referred  to  above:  A  vote  in  the  second 
or  third  column  may  contribute  to  the  defeat  of  a  voter's  first  choice  by  a  less  acceptable,  even  though  still 
acceptable,  candidate.  Some  thinkers  and  writers  regard  this  with  concern,  but  the  ordinary  public- 
spirited  voter,  rightly,  it  may  be  believed,  shows  little  interest  in  it.  He  sees  that  his  second  or  lower  choice 
man,  out  of  a  field  of  good  candidates,  will  be  on  the  side  of  the  public  interest  as  well  as  his  first-choice 
man,  and  that,  after  all,  is  the  question  before  the  House.  The  satisfaction  in  greatly  increased  power  to 
keep  out  bad  and  incompetent  men  greatly  outweighs  with  him  the  risk  to  a  minor  personal  preference 
here  and  there.  He  sees,  moreover,  that  this  very  imperfection  tends  still  more  completely  to  turn  the 
tables  on  the  machine  partisan  or  henchman  who  puts  private  schemes  ahead  of  the  public  good,  and  into 
whose  hands  the  present  system  so  perniciously  plays. 


THE  PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT. 


BALLOT  ILLUSTRATING  PREFERENTIAL  VOTING. 
(Bucklin  system.) 

INSTRUCTIONS.— To  vote  for  a  candidate  make  a  cross  (X)  in  the  appropriate  space. 
Vote  your  FIRST  choice  in  the  FIRST  column. 
Vote  your  SECOND  choice  in  the  SECOND  column. 

Vote  ONLY  ONE  FIRST  choice  and  ONLY  ONE  SECOND  choice  for  any  one  office. 
Vote  in  the  THIRD  column  for  ALL  THE  OTHER  CANDIDATES  whom  you  wish  to  support. 
Do  NOT  VOTE  MORE  THAN  ONE  CHOICE  FOR  ONE  PERSON,  as  only  one  choice  will 
count  for  any  candidate. 


For  mayor. 
(One  to  be  elected.) 

First  choice. 
(Not  more 
than  one.) 

Second  choice. 
(Not  more 
than  one.) 

Other  choices. 
(As  many  as 
you  wish.) 

Charles  E  Hughes                                   

x 

Champ  Clark       

James  A  O'Gorman                    

Nelson  W  Aldrich                            

Richard  Croker 

- 

Robert  L  Owen          

x 

William  H  Taft                            

Joseph  W  Folk 

x 

Robert  M  La  Follette  

x 

Woodrow  Wilson          .... 

x 

William  J  Bryan 

x 

Chauncey  M.  Depew  

Theodore  Roosevelt  

x 

An  election  by  less  than  a  majority  is  often  to  be  expected  in  the 
first  election  by  the  new  system  in  a  large  city,  where  candidates  may 
well  be  few  who  are  both  widely  enough  known  and  favorably  enough 
known  to  command  a  majority  without  the  help  of  a  party  label.  In 
subsequent  elections  successful  incumbents  up  for  reelection  should 
frequently  be  found  to  command  an  actual  majority  vote,  even  in 


8 


THE   PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT. 


large  cities.     Newton  D.  Baker,  mayor  of  Cleveland,  is  an  instance 
in  point. 

If  more  than  one  person  is  to  be  elected  from  a  group,  as  in  Spokane, 
the  number  of  first  and  second  choices  allowed  is  increased  accord- 
ingly and  the  consequent  special  provisions  made. 

HOW   IT   WORKS    IN   PRACTICE. 

How  it  works  in  practice  is  significantly  shown  by  the  results  of 
its  first  trial  in  Grand  Junction.  They  are  here  given,  for  they  are  not 
yet  widely  enough  known. 

The  results  are  often,  of  course,  less  striking,  for  it  frequently  hap- 
pens that  the  leader  in  first  choices  is  the  final  choice.  There  is,  of 
course,  no  objection  to  this.  Such  a  plurality  of  first  choices  is  thus 
shown  to  be  a  representative  plurality.  The  trouble  with  the  old 
system  was  the  great  premium  it  held  out  for  securing  an  unrepresent- 
ative or  distinctly  antimajority  plurality. 

Practical  working  of  preferential  voting,  Grand  Junction,  Colo.,  Nov.  2,  1909. 

Total  number  of  ballots  cast 1,  847 

Majority  (of  first  choices) 900 

Result  of  the  votes  for  mayor. 


First 
choice. 

Second 
choice. 

Other 
choices. 

Combined 
firsts  and 
seconds. 

Combined 
firsts, 
seconds, 
others. 

D  W  Aupperle 

465 

143 

145 

608 

753 

*W  H  Bannister 

603 

93 

43 

696 

739 

N  A  Lough                   

99 

231 

328 

330 

658 

*E  B  Lutes  

41 

114 

88 

155 

243 

E.  M.  Slocomb  

229 

357 

326 

586 

912 

Thomas  M  Todd  (elected) 

362 

293 

396 

655 

1  051 

1,799 

l,231f 

1,  326f 

*  The  s'arred  men  were  the  anticharter  candidates;  the  others  the  procharter  candidates. 

t  The  light  vote  in  the  second  and  third  columns  is,  of  course,  due  to  the  603  Bannister  voters'  natural 
concentration  on  the  only  candidate  acceptable  to  them.  This  gave  them  a  lead  in  first  choices,  but  being 
in  the  minority  they  could  not  win  against  the  majority,  because,  thanks  to  this  ballot,  the  majority  were 
able  to  get  together. 

Omitting  reference  to  the  Grand  Junction  practice  of  "  dropping 
the  low  man" — an  unessential  complication,  not  likely  to  be  widely 
adopted,  not  included  in  the  Bucklin  system,  and  without  influence 
on  this  election  this  instance  becomes  a  perfect  illustration  of  the 
Bucklin  system  as  defined  in  this  paper. 

The  decision  was  drawn  from  the  foregoing  figures  as  follows: 

No  one  having  a  majority  in  first  choices,  the  first  and  seconds  were 
added  together.  Then  the  leading  candidate,  Bannister,  provided 
he  had  had  a  majority,  would  have  won. 

No  one  having  a  majority  by  combined  first  and  seconds,  the  first, 
second,  and  other  choices  were  added  together,  and  Todd,  the  candi- 
date then  leading,  won. 

Under  the  usual  plurality  system  the  minority  would  have  beaten 
the  majority  and  elected  Bannister. 


THE   PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT.  9 

Under  the  Berkeley,  Des  Moines,  Los  Angeles,  or  Seattle  plan,  that 
of  second  elections,  there  would  have  resulted  a  contest,  possibly 
bitter,  between  Aupperle  and  Bannister,  neither  of  whom  had  a 
majority  of  the  people  behind  him. 

The  next  election  by  the  preferential  ballot  was  held  in  Spokane 
(1910  census,  population,  104,402)  in  March,  1911.  It  was  the  first 
election  under  their  present  commission  government  charter.  There 
were  five  offices  to  fill,  three  for  four  years  and  two  for  two  years 
(to  secure  overlapping  terms),  and  each  one  carried  a  $5,000  salary. 
Nomination  was  secured  by  petition  of  25  citizens.  The  result  was 
92  candidates  in  nomination  for  the  five  offices,  the  candidates,  of 
course,  varying  widely  in  quality.  The  number  of  votes  cast  was 
22,058.  Seven  thousand  women  had  registered  in  the  few  months 
since  their  enfranchisement.  This  was  their  first  election  of  any 
kind,  and  the  first  experience  of  the  men  with  this  kind  of  ballot. 
The  election  is  responsibly  reported  to  have  gone  off  smoothly  and 
without  complaint  of  difficulty  or 'confusion.  None  of  the  five  men 
who  won  had  ever  held  an  elective  city  office.  There  was  an  entire 
change  in  the  quality  of  city  officers.  The  citizens  for  the  first  tune 
in  their  history  had  a  fair  chance  at  something  besides  politicians, 
and  seized  upon  it.  Not  only  the  first  5,  but  the  highest  12  names 
in  the  list  were  names  of  people  who  had  never  been  in  elective 
office.  They  were  men  successful  in  business  and  ordinary  voca- 
tions, a  type  quite  different  from  the  ordinary  politician.  The  third 
man  among  the  five  winners  was  Mr.  C.  M.  Fassett,  president  of  the 
Spokane  Chamber  of  Commerce,  one  of  the  most  successful  and 
respected  business  men  in  the  Northwest.  He  was  nominated  and 
elected  during  a  prolonged  absence  from  the  State,  and  returned  to 
the  city  only  the  day  before  he  was  sworn  in  as  a  city  official.  He 
took  no  part  in  the  campaign  beyond  signing  his  acceptance  of  the 
nomination,  which  had  been  mailed  to  him,  and  writing  two  or  three 
other  letters  home,  which  were  published  in  the  local  papers.  Only 
one  of  the  five  winners  was  at  that  time  sufficiently  widely  known  to 
secure  the  votes  of  a  majority,  even  upon  an  addition  of  first,  second, 
and  other  choices.  The  winners  were  men  of  standing,  successful  in 
business  or  the  professions,  and  of  high  civic  spirit.  The  people 
were  greatly  pleased,  not  only  with  the  quality  of  officers  selected 
but  with  the  high  tone  of  the  campaign.  Spokane  found  that  an 
entire  change  in  the  rules  had  proved  well  worth  making. 

The  next  election  in  Spokane  with  the  preferential  ballot  occurred 
November  4,  1913,  and  was  for  the  purpose  of  providing  successors 
to  the  two  short-term  men  elected  at  the  first  election.  The  term  for 
these  two  officers  was  henceforth  four  years.  The  preferential  ballot 
had  in  the  first  election  demonstrated  the  uselessness  of  trifling 
candidacies  for  office,  even  though  they  were  obtainable  by  mere 
petition  of  25  signers,  and  though  the  salary  and  the  offices  were 
attractive.  This  time,  instead  of  92  candidates  for  five  offices,  only 
12  candidates  appeared  on  the  ballot  for  the  two  places,  10  besides 
the  two  incumbents  of  the  offices  who  were  up  for  reelection.  Strong 
as  these  two  men  .were,  the  voters  selected  two  others  in  their  places. 
The  two  candidates  upsjfor  reelection  seemed  evidently  overtopped 
by  still  more  acceptable  men.  One  of  the  two  winners  led  in  first 
choices;  the  other  was  fourth  in  first  choices,  and  it  required  the 


10  THE   PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT. 

summation  of  all  three  columns  to  determine  the  election.  The 
higher  of  the  two  winners  had  more  than  the  majority,  as  now 
ordinarily  defined,  and  the  other  came  within  95  votes  of  it. 

In  Portland,  Oreg.  (1914  census,  population  207,214),  in  its 
first  preferential  election  in  June,  1913,  there  were  six  candidates  for 
mayor  and  78  candidates  for  four  places  in  the  council.  Here 
again  the  result  was  highly  satisfactory,  and  a  new  grade  of  official 
was  put  in  charge  of  city  affairs.  In  Portland  the  voters  were 
evidently  greatly  assissted  by  a  volunteer  committee  of  a  hundred 
leading  men  and  women,  who  indorsed  12  of  the  78  candidates  for 
the  four  places  in  the  council.  All  the  winners  were  included  in  this 
list  of  12,  and  all  12  came  out  inside  the  highest  18.  Here,  as  in 
Spokane,  newly  enfranchised  women  participated  in  large  numbers 
in  their  first  election. 

PROGRESS   OF  PREFERENTIAL  VOTING. 

The  progress  of  the  Bucklin  system  to  date  (January  1,  1915),  can 
be  seen  from  the  following  list  of  cities  which  have  already  adopted 
it: 

Preferential  voting  adopted — Primaries  supplanted: 

Date.  Cities.  Population  in  1910. 

1909 Grand  Junction,  Colo 7,754 

1910 Spokane,  Wash 104,402 

1911 Pueblo,  Colo 44,395 

1912 New  Iberia,  La 7,  499 

1913 Duluth,  Minn 78,466 

1913 Denver,  Colo 213,381 

1913 Colorado  Springs,  Colo 29,078  * 

1913 Portland,  Oreg 207,214  *  f 

1913 Nashua,  N.  H 26,005 

1913 Cleveland,  Ohio 560,663  J 

1913 La  Grande,  Oreg 4,843  f  II 

1913 Fort  Collins,  Colo 8,  210  f 

1913 St.  Petersburg,  Fla 4, 127 

1913 Cadillac,  Mich 8,375  f  II 

1914 Vineland,  N.  J 5,282  * 

1914 Ridgewood,  N.  J 5, 4] 6  * 

1914 Nutley,  N.  J 6,009  * 

1914 Hawthorne,  N.J 3,400  * 

1914 Bordentown,  N.  J 4,  250  * 

1914 Millville,  N.  J 12,541  * 

1914 Long  Branch,  N.  J 13,298  * 

1914 Phillipsburg,  N.J 13,903  * 

1914 Eleven  cities  of  New  Jersey,  each  under  5,000 

population 25,  521  * 

1914 Orange,  N.J 29,630  * 

1914 Atlantic  City,  N.  J 46,150  * 

1914 Passaic,  N.J 54,  773  * 

1914 Trenton,  N.J 96,815  * 

1914 Jersey  City,  N.  J 267,779  * 


1,  889, 179 
Preferential  voting  adopted  as  adjunct  to  primary: 

1913 Houston,  Tex 78,  800  * 

Total  population 1,  967,  979 

*  Commission  form  charter.    Regarding  the  New  Jersey  cities,  see  note  next  page, 
t  Restriction  to  one  vote  in  the  third  column  for  each  office  to  be  filled.    The  provisions  in  this  respect 
of  La  Grande  and  Fort  Collins  are  not  quite  clear. 

1  Twenty-five  hundred  signatures  required  for  nomination  of  mayoralty  candidates. 
I  Commission  city  manager  plan. 


THE   PKEFERENTIAL  BALLOT.  11 

In  1914  Bangor,  Me.  (population  24,803),  adopted  by  popular  vote  a  commission 
charter  providing  preferential  voting  (with  elimination  ol  primaries  and  election  to 
specific  office),  which  is  now  awaiting  ratification  by  the  legislature  before  taking 
effect.  Preferential  voting  is  seriously  being  urged  by  responsible  bodies  in  Detroit, 
Buffalo,  and  numerous  other  cities. 

A  demand  for  the  introduction  of  the  preferential  ballot  into  the  direct  primaries  of 
New  Jersey  was  emodied  in  the  platform  of  each  of  the  Republican,  Progressive,  and 
Democratic  parties  in  the  1913  campaign.  This  resulted  in  the  substitution  of  the 
preferential  ballot  for  the  primary  and  second  election  system  in  the  commission-gov- 
erned cities  of  New  Jersey,  present  and  future,  and  the  movement  for  its  further  use  in 
New  Jersey  is  being  vigorously  pushed. 

This  New  Jersey  law  introduces  one  new  column  headed  "Third  choice,"  making 
four  columns  for  crosses  headed  "First  choice,"  "Second  choice,"  "Third  choice, 
and  "Other  choices,"  respectively. 

In  1911  a  commission  iorm  charter  for  Cambridge,  Mass.,  including  the  Bucklin 
system,  abolishing  primaries,  passed  a  Republican  legislature,  was  signed  by  a  Demo- 
cratic governor,  and  failed  of  adoption  by  the  people  at  that  early  date,  when  an 
almost-unheard  of  novelty,  by  only  798  votes  in  a  total  of  over  11,300  votes  cast  on  it. 

Interest  in  the  preferential  ballot  shows  no  signs  of  abating  in  that 
city,  and  the  interest  is  extending  into  the  neighboring  cities  and 
throughout  the  State. 

NOTES    FROM   THE    FIELD. 

Spokane,  Duluth,  Portland,  Nashua,  and  others  of  the  preceding 
list  of  cities  elect  two  to  six  candidates  from  a  group,  with  as  many 
first  choices  and  as  many  second  choices  permitted  as  there  are 
offices  to  be  filled.  In  such  cases  care  must  be  taken  to  provide  for 
the  event  of  more  candidates  getting  a  majority  of  first  choices,  or 
of  firsts  and  seconds  combined,  than  there  are  offices  to  be  filled. 
Of  course,  this  is  done  by  simply  taking  the  highest  ones  up  to  the 
requisite  number.  Commission-governed  cities  which  elect  the 
members  of  their  councils  to  specific  office,*  of  course,  have  only 
one  to  elect  from  a  group. 

Spokane  and  Duluth  have  curious  and  dubious  prescriptions  that 
a  voter  must  vote  as  many  first  choices  as  there  are  places  to  be 
filled  from  the  group  or  have  his  ballot  rejected.  This  seems  an 
unwarranted  infraction  of  the  voter's  liberty  to  vote  for  as  few  as 
well  as  for  as  many  as  he  pleases. 

Colorado  Springs  has  the  interesting  distinction  of  being  the  first 
city  to  modify  a  preexisting  commission  charter  by  the  substitution 
of  preferential  voting  (with  election  to  specific  office)  for  the  conven- 
tional double-election  system  of  Des  Moines  with  election  to  undesig- 
nated  places  in  the  council.  Houston,  Tex.,  is  practically  in  the 
same  company. 

The  New  Jersey  commission-governed  cities  have  abandoned  the 
double-election  system  for  the  preferential  ballot. 

Each  of  the  five  largest  cities  of  Colorado  has  adopted  the  preferen- 
tial ballot,  all  but  one  of  them,  Pueblp,  with  election  to  specific 
office. 

Los  Angeles,  Tacoma,  Seattle,  and  Lawrence  and  Salem,  Mass.,  are 
among  the  cities  that  have  had  to  recall  mayors  or  other  officials 
chosen  by  the  primary  and  final  election  systems.  No  official  chosen 
by  the  preferential  ballot  has  ever  been  subjected  to  a  clear-cut  f  recall 

*  A  discussion  of  this  innovation  in  commission  government  will  be  found  in  National  Municipal 
Review,  October,  1913,  p.  661. 

f  Pueblo,  in  1913,  adopted  a  charter  amendment  reducing  the  size  of  the  council  from  five  to  three,  and, 
as  the  amendment  named  the  two  who  were  to  withdraw,  effected  a  recall  so  far  as  these  two  men  were 
concerned.  Whether  the  recall  alone  would  have  carried,  or  even  come  to  a  vote,  is  not  clear. 


12  THE   PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT. 

election,  though  disgruntled  interests,  chafing  under  vigorous  and 
honest  administration,  have  vainly  tried  to  accomplish  that  result. 
It  is  a  pretty  daring  undertaking  to  try  to  oust  an  official  known  to 
have  got  his  office  in  a  free,  open,  highly  competitive  contest,  and  to 
have  won  it  solely  because  he  was  on  the  whole  preferred  for  that 
office  to  any  other  citizen. 

MORE    RECENT   RESULTS. 

While  some  of  the  most  strikingly  gratif ying  results  with  the  prefer- 
ential ballot  have  been  those  reported  above  from  Grand  Junction, 
Spokane,  and  Portland,  Oreg.,  the  combination  of  preferential  voting 
and  nomination  to  specific  office  led,  in  Denver,  to  a  noteworthy  out- 
come in  the  election  from  among  23  candidates  of  an  exceptionally 
qualified  commissioner  of  improvements,  Mr.  Hunter.  Moreover,  he 
polled  the  highest  total  vote  of  all  of  the  135  candidates  for  the  six 
offices.  It  is  certainly  an  encouraging  instance  of  the  new  politics  when 
the  nominee  of  the  local  members  of  the  American  Society  of  Civil 
Engineers  (under  the  ordinary  regime  keeping  as  a  body  scrupulously 
aloof  from  "politics")  can  not  only  be  brought  within  the  reach  of  the 
voters  for  public  administrative  office,  but  can  be  so  handsomely 
elected,  as  was  the  case  with  Mr.  Hunter. 

Some  complaint  of  the  result  in  Denver  is  heard  from  some  of  the 
more  radically  progressive  sources  because  the  winners  were  on  the 
whole  not  progressive  enough  to  suit  them.  But  close  and  fair  observ- 
ers believe  that  they  were  fully  representative  of  the  public  sentiment 
of  Denver  at  the  time — and  that  is  all  that  the  preferential  ballot  is 
intended  to  accomplish.  Moreover,  extremes  of  radicalism  and 
reaction  should  be  referred  to  the  initiative  as  their  proper  field  of 
activity — and  Denver  has  the  initiative. 

The  Denver  election  illustrates  another  thing  worth  noting,  and 
one  likely  to  happen  in  such  large  cities,  especially  at  the  first  election. 
In  such  cases,  as  has  been  stated  above,  even  in  a  long  list  of  nomi- 
nees, there  may  well  be  few  or  no  names  both  widely  enough  and 
favorably  enough  known,  when  standing  entirely  on  their  personal 
records  and  without  the  aid  of  a  party  label,  to  command  a  majority 
vote.  In  subsequent  elections,  the  probably  excellent  records  of  the 
officers  up  for  reelection,  the  fewer  offices  to  fill  (owing  to  overlapping 
terms)  and  improved  means  of  publicity  on  the  merits  of  candidates 
should  all  tend  to  produce  a  larger  support  for  the  winning  candidates. 

In  Denver  there  were  135  nominees  for  five  commissionerships  and 
an  auditorship,  the  number  of  nominees  for  each  office  ranging  from 
14  for  the  auditorship  and  an  equal  number  for  commissioner  of 
finance,  to  29  for  commissioner  of  social  welfare.  No  one  got  a 
majority,  even  by  a  combination  of  all  choices.  The  winners  had  the 
support  of  from  23  per  cent  in  the  lowest  case  to  42  per  cent  in  the 
highest  case  of  the  voters  at  the  election.  The  number  of  signatures 
required  for  nomination  in  Denver  is  100. 

Similarly  in  the  first  election  in  Spokane  under  the  new  system 
only  one  of  the  five  winning  candidates  out  of  a  field  of  92  got  a 
majority,  and  in  Portland  only  three  of  the  six  winners  out  of  a  field 
of  88. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  each  of  these  cities  has  the  initia- 
tive, referendum,  and  recall,  which  act  as  important  allies  of  the 
preferential  ballot  in  safeguarding  the  majority  interest.  They 


THE  PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT.  13 

should  tend  to  keep  the  unfit  from  appearing  in  nomination,  and  are 
protection  against  harm  even  if  objectionable  candidates  should  slip 
by  the  election. 

Nashua,  in  her  first  election  under  the  new  system  on  December  8, 
1914,  secured  gratifying  results,  and  the  test  of  the  preferential  ballot 
was  in  important  respects  the  most  severe  yet  made.  There  were 
elected  a  mayor,  six  aldermen  at  large,  nine  aldermen  by  wards,  four 
members  of  a  board  of  public  works,  three  fire  commissioners,  and 
four  members  of  a  board  of  education.  Nominations  were  by  50 
signatures.  The  total  number  to  be  elected  in  any  one  ward  was  19. 
The  number  of  nominees  for  these  19  places  in  one  of  the  wards  was  53. 
Of  the  27  elected  in  the  whole  city,  only  one  is  looked  upon  by  good 
judges  as  bordering  on  the  unfit,  and  he  is  so  overborne  by  numbers 
as  to  cause  no  anxiety.  Important  new  talent,  hitherto  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  citizens,  found  its  way  into  the  city  service  in  this  elec- 
tion. It  would  seem  that  if  the  Bucklin  system  can  go  through  such 
a  complicated  election  as  that  of  Nashua  with  credit  its  case  is  pretty 
secure. 

The  Bucklin  system  has  also  given  good  account  of  itself  in  Cleve- 
land, but  no  notable  changes  have  been  reported  as  a  result.  Mayor 
Baker  was  reelected,  as  was  wholly  to  be  expected — for  he  is  a  mayor 
notably  loyal  to  the  majority  interest. 

WARNINGS    FROM    EXPERIENCE. 

This  gratifying  record  and  rapid  progress  brings  with  it  not  only 
encouragement,  but  some  warnings  which  should  be  noted  and 
acted  upon.  They  may  be  definitely  stated  as  follows : 

1.  No  system  of  voting,  preferential  or  other,  can  insure  an  actual 
majority  support  for  the  winner. — While  the  Bucklin  system  of  pref- 
erential voting  probably  comes  nearer  to  this  standard  than  any 
other  at  present  practicable,  the  supporters  of  even  that  system 
should  retrain  from  calling  it,  without  qualifications,  a  " majority 
system." 

Obviously  for  any  candidate  to  get  a  majority  he  must  be  known 
both  widely  enough  and  favorably  enough  to  get  the  votes  of  the 
majority  of  those  at  least  who  cast  ballots.  The  best  known  so-called 
"absolute-majority"  systems  derive  their  slender  claim  to  that  pre- 
tentious title  either  from  a  system  of  dropping  low  men  or  of  choking 
off  nominees  by  primary  elections,  as  a  result  of  which  only  two  are 
left  in  the  final  contest  and  of  course  one  gets  more  than  the  other, 
without  necessarily  having  a  majority  or  being  able  in  a  free  open 
election  to  get  a  majority  of  the  votes  of  the  voting  body.  The  man 
elected  by  either  of  those  systems  may,  of  all  the  nominees,  actually 
be  among  the  least  acceptable  to  the  majority. 

The  political  objection  to  the  too  sweeping  name  of  "  absolute- 
majority  system,"  apart  from  its  inherently  misleading  character,  is 
its  tendency  to  undermine  public  confidence  in  those  who  are  ready 
to  lead.  It  offers  an  opportunity  to  objectors  for  troublesome 
taunts,  and  with  a  show  of  justification  which  reformers  should  be 
too  astute  to  permit  them. 

While  pointing  out  that  majorities  are  sometimes  not  to  be  had, 
especially  in  first  elections  in  large  cities,  we  may  fairly  assert  that  in 
such  cases  a  plurality  indicating  the  man  who  is  preferred  above  all 
others  in  a  free  and  open  contest,  in  which  conditions  favor  an  adequate 


14  THE   PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT. 

supply  of  desirable  candidates  and  in  which  each  voter  may  vote  for 
every  candidate  to  his  liking  and  need  vote  against  no  such  candidate,  is 
the  safest  known  criterion  for  election.  A  plurality  of  that  sort  is 
very  unlikely  to  be  an  antimajority  plurality. 

2.  The  uselessness  and  danger  of  restriction  upon  the  number  of 
third-column  choices.  Happily  the  large  cities  imposing  such  restric- 
tions are  in  the  small  minority,  but  that  there  should  be  any  is  sur- 
prising. Such  restrictions  are  obviously  in  violation  of  the  funda- 
mental principle  and  purpose  of  the  preferential  ballot.  This  purpose 
is  to  provide  a  means  to  secure  the  safest  practicable  choice  in  one 
election  from  a  large  number  of  nominees,  with  a  majority  behind 
the  winner  if  possible;  if  not,  the  next  best  thing.  To  put  it  another 
way,  the  preferential  ballot  is  intended  to  make  it  as  easy  as  possible  for 
voters  of  any  one  type  automatically  to  get  together  behind  some  one  of  a 
large  number  of  nominees  acceptable  to  them.  If  the  number  of  choices 
is  restricted  at  all,  just  so  far  the  possibility  of  getting  together  is 
threatened.  For  example,  suppose  there  are  nine  good  candidates 
(A,  B,  C,  etc.),  only  three  choices  permitted,  and  two-thirds  of  the 
voters  want  some  one  of  those  nine.  The  two-thirds  could  readily 
be  divided  into  three  groups,  one  group  voting  for  A,  B,  and  C;  the 
next  for  D,  E,  and  F;  the  third  for  G,  H,  and  I.  The  largest  of  these 
groups  might  well  fall  below  one-third  the  whole  body  of  voters, 
even  to  less  than  a  fourth,  and  thus  meet  defeat  at  the  hands  of  a 
united  machine-ruled  one-third,  concentrated,  by  means  they  know 
how  to  use,  on  a  single  candidate.  This  danger  may  seem  remote, 
but  it  is  hard  to  see  what  excuse  there  is  for  risking  it.  Some  may 
carelessly  think  if  one  choice  is  good,  three  choices  are  three  times  as 
good,  and  that  is  good  enough.  But  such  reasoning  clearly  overlooks 
the  facts  that  the  fundamental  purpose  of  the  preferential  ballot  is 
to  enable  the  majority  to  get  together  and  win  and  that  any  restric- 
tion in  the  number  of  choices  flies  squarely  in  the  face  of  that  pur- 
pose. Others  may  dread  careless  marking  in  the  third  column  by 
voters  if  left  unrestricted.  The  answer  is  twofold.  The  voters 
understand — as  experience  has  shown — that  they  must  not  vote  any 
choice  for  a  man  unless  they  are  willing  to  help  elect  him;  and  the 
actual  voting  in  the  third  column  certainly  shows  no  sign  as  yet  of 
being  too  liberal.  In  any  event,  the  intelligent  voter's  full  and 
free  choice  should  not  be  hampered  for  fear  of  careless  work  by  the 
foolish  few. 

If,  as  in  one  system  in  use  in  Wisconsin  and  elsewhere,  and  made 
practicable  by  dropping  low  men,  the  choices  are  restricted  to  two, 
the  evil  above  pointed  out  is  intensified,  to  say  nothing  of  the  evil, 
inherent  in  dropping  low  men,  that  the  "low  man"  dropped,  even  in 
an  apparently  close  election,  may  be  the  preference  of  the  over- 
whelming majority  over  the  actual  winner. 

Permitting  only  two  choices  from  among  10  nominees  or  3  from 
among  15  is  as  likely  to  be  as  disastrous  as  the  old  plurality  system 
with  only  1  choice  from  among  5. 

Restrictions  in  the  number  of  allowed  choices  are  needless  and 
dangerous  but,  happily,  unusual.  No  clear  evidence  of  actual  harm 
from  them  in  the  few  cities  which  have  them  has,  however,  yet  been 
reported.  Like  rocking  the  boat,  they  are  frequently  unaccompanied 
by  casualty.  But  the  risk  should  not  be  incurred.  It  is  simply  an 
invitation  to  trouble  without  compensating  advantage  of  any  Kind. 


THE  PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT.  15 

3.  The  excessive  number  of  signatures  sometimes  required  upon  nom- 
inating petitions,  or  for  placing  names  on  primary  ballots.  A  high 
number  of  signatures  is  resorted  to  only  as  a  means  of  choking  off 
excessively  numerous  or  trifling  nominations.  The  device  doubtless 
tends  that  way,  though  very  uncertainly,  and  it  tends  also  to  choke 
off  many  a  desirable  nomination.  The  organized  interests,  with 
money,  do  not  find  it  hard  to  get  a  large  number  of  signatures,  while 
to  the  normal  type  of  citizen,  with  no  ax  to  grind,  such  red-tap  pre- 
scriptions are  well-nigh  intolerably  burdensome  and  distasteful. 
They  are,  moreover,  a  powerful  incentive  to  improper  use  of  money 
and  to  wholesale  forgeries  and  fraud.  Such  unreasonable  burdens 
on  legitimate  political  activity  are  among  the  chief  causes  of  the 
very  apathy  out  of  which  we  are  hoping  to  arouse  citizens  at  large. 

With  25  sufficing  for  nominating  petitions  in  cities  ranging  up  to 
Lowell,  Mass,  (population,  106,295),  and  100  sufficing  in  Denver 
(population,  213,381),  Portland  (population  207,214),  and  Los  Ange- 
les (population,  319,198),  in  all  3  of  which  women  vote  and  greatly 
increase  their  voting  population  relatively  to  Cleveland,  it  is  hard  to 
see  why  Cleveland  should  take  such  an  extreme  figure  as  2,500. 
Boston,  to  be  sure,  through  two  elections,  used  5,000,  and  with  little 
satisfaction,  as  a  means  of  choking  off  nominees,  but  there  is  an 
excuse  for  this  in  that  their  elections  are  upon  the  old-fashioned 
single-choice  vote  and  plurality  system  of  our  grandfathers,  and  a 
large  number  of  candidates,  under  that  system,  would  be  something 
to  be  dreaded.  Even  the  5,000  requirement  did  not  prevent  the 
appearance  at  the  first  election  of  two  trifling  candidates  out  of  four, 
whose  combined  vote  came  to  less  than  2,500  in  a  total  for  all  four  of 
95,356.  These  two,  however,  split  the  vote  and  the  office  went  on  a 
mere  plurality  to  the  anticharter  candidate  for  mayor.  This  kind 
of  a  thing  is  particularly  serious,  because  it  undermines  public  confi- 
dence in  "  reform."  The  results,  in  fraud  and  confusion,  in  the  second 
Boston  election,  led  to  the  reduction  of  the  number  required  from 
5,000  to  2,500,  but  with  retention  of  the  old  plurality  system. 

In  order,  so  far  as  possible,  to  encourage  the  candidacy  of  citizens 
who  are  not  only  without  a  machine,  but  who,  like  their  probable 
backers,  find  the  ordinary  petty  routine  and  red  tape  of  getting 
multitudes  of  signatures  intolerably  irksome,  it  is  of  great  importance 
to  keep  the  number  of  signatures  required  for  nominating  petitions 
at  a  very  low  figure.  This  the  preferential  ballot  makes  quite  safe, 
and  experience  is  accumulating  evidence  like  that  from  Spokane,  that 
after  the  new  is  worn  off  by  the  first  election,  the  number  of  candi- 
dates sinks  to  a  wholly  reasonable  figure.  It  is  easy  to  see  why  it 
should.  A  nomination  so  easily  got  confers  no  advantage  and  is  not 
worth  having  unless  there  is  a  substantial  backing  for  the  candidate. 

One  may  fairly  hazard  the  assertion  that  there  is  no  poorer  way 
to  safeguard  elections  than  by  making  nominations  difficult  or 
irksome. 

CONDENSED  COMPARISON  OF  THE  PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT  WITH  OTHER 

PROCEDURES. 

The  double  election  system  in  use  in  Des  Moines,  Los  Angeles, 
Seattle,  Tacoma,  Lawrence,  Mass.,  and  many  other  cities,  may  elect 
any  candidate  from  the  best  to  the  next  to  the  least  acceptable  of 


16  THE   PKEFERENTIAL  BALLOT. 

the  strong  candidates.  Of  the  two  men  selected  in  the  primary  both 
may  be  unacceptable,  but  the  final  election  will  reject  the  less  accept- 
able of  the  two.  It  is  the  raw  plurality  system  but  thinly  disguised 
by  the  burdensome  doubling  of  elections. 

The  ordinary  State  primary  may  elect  any  from  the  best  to  the 
very  least  acceptable  of  the  strong  candidates.  The  worst  candidate 
of  any  party  may  emerge  from  the  primary  with  a  plurality,  and  if 
his  is  the  strongest  of  several  parties,  he  may  get  the  final  election 
by  a  plurality.  It  is  the  old  plurality  system,  somewhat  sobered, 
perhaps,  by  partisan  self-interest. 

The  old  plurality  election,  without  primaries,'  as  in  Boston,  may 
elect  any  from  the  best  to  the  least  acceptable.  It  may  deliberately 
be  characterized  as  the  most  hazardous  system  of  public  elections 
known. 

In  all  three  of  the  foregoing  cases  a  bad  matter  is  made  worse  by 
the  fact  that  the  imperfections  of  the  systems,  and  the  burdensome 
nomination  or  campaign  conditions  which  they  involve,  are  great 
obstacles  to  getting  the  best  of  citizens  to  accept  a  nomination. 

The  preferential  ballot  under  normal  conditions  elects  the  best  or 
one  of  the  best  of  the  candidates;  moreover,  the  improved  campaign 
conditions  which  go  with  it  tend  to  attract  good  candidates  into 
nomination.  This  statement,  of  course,  presupposes  the  usual  case  in 
which  the  primary  is  eliminated.  The  advantage  of  the  preferential 
ballot  over  all  other  forms  of  election  procedure  is  clear  and  sharp. 
Experience  alone  will  teach  us  into  how  large  a  voting  unit  we  may 
care  to  push  it.  The  case  for  its  use  in  large  cities  seems  already  to 
be  made. 

But  even  with  the  preferential  ballot  in  vogue,  a  neglect  to  nomi- 
nate a  candidate  of  majority  magnitude  might  enable  an  antimajority 
man  to  win.  No  election  procedure  can  be  expected  to  be  either 
apathy-proof  or  fool-proof.  The  best  we  can  do  is  to  minimize  the 
chances  for  harm. 

Whatever  the  election  procedure,  good  publicity  conditions  and 
good  initiative,  referendum  and  recall  provisions,  by  hedging  the 
office  about  with  wholesome  restraints,  are  good  supplements  to  any 
election  system.  They  deter  bad  candidacies  and  reduce  the  harm 
if  a  bad  candidate  should  slip  past  the  election. 

SUMMARY     OF     ADVANTAGES     OF     PREFERENTIAL     VOTING      (BUCKLIN 

SYSTEM.)* 

The  chief  advantages  of  the  Bucklin  system  of  preferential  voting 
may  be  restated  and  summarized  as  follows  : 

1.  It  permits  the  abolition  of  primaries  without  interference  with 
the  democratic  and  rational  method  of  nomination  by  a  very  small 
number  of  petitioners. 

2.  It  permits  the  nomination  of  a  large  number  of  candidates  with 
practical  elimination  of  the  danger  of  the  split  ticket. 

*  Some  of  these  advantages  are  offered  by  other  systems,  but  no  other,  it  is  believed,  offers  to  a  sufficient 
degree  the  cardinal  requisites  of  simplicity,  acceptability,  safety,  and  real  suitability  to  its  purpose.  Hence 
no  space  is  taken  in  this  paper  for  their  discussion.  The  Bucklin  system  is,  however,  given  particular 
emphasis  by  name  in  order  to  avoid  possibility  of  confusion.  Information  regarding  other  systems  can  be 
found  in  the  files  of  Equity  (Dr.  C.  F.  Taylor,  publisher.  1520  Chestnut  St.,  Philadelphia),  to  some 
extent  in  works  on  proportional  representation,  and  particularly  in  a  Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on 
Systems  of  Election  (Cd.  5163),  published  about  five  years  ago. 


THE   PREFERENTIAL   BALLOT.  17 

3.  It  fosters  campaign  methods  which  greatly  reduce  the  difficulty 
of  getting  high-grade  men  to  stand  for  office.     It  minimizes  the 
un attractiveness  of  the  campaign  and  effectively  discourages  "  mud- 
slinging  ;; — the  candidate  who  might  otherwise  descend  to  slander  of 
his  opponents  is  deterred  by  fear  of  alienating  second  or  other  choice 
votes  which  might  come  his  way.     The  competition  between  nomi- 
nees, while  keen  and  searching,  is  neither  burdensome  nor  invidious. 
While  it  is  a  great  honor  to  win,  it  may  be  no  dishonor  and  no  dis- 
appointment to  lose.     The  best  nominees  may  well  accept  nomina- 
nations  in  the  spirit  of  friendliest  rivalry  and  work  for  the  election  of 
any  one  of  a  group  of  their  fellow  nominees  quite  as  much  as  for  them- 
selves, and  perhaps  even  more  earnestly.     The  responsibility  on  any 
one  nominee  to  win  may  become  so  slight  that  a  man  may  accept  a 
nomination  in  the  midst  of  an  absence  from  the  State  which  is  pro- 
longed till  after  election  day  and  still  be  elected.     This  actually  hap- 
pened when  the  president  of  the  Spokane  Chamber  of  Commerce  was 
thus  elected  in  1911  as  one  of  a  commission  of  five  to  a  four-year 
term,  and  from  a  list  of  92  nominees  for  the  commission.     Other 
results  in  preferential  voting  cities  show  that  the  voters  are  quick, 
as  might  be  expected,  to  elect  a  better  grade  of  officials  as  soon  as 
they  are  brought  within  their  reach. 

4.  It  is  believed  to  be  the  safest  known  means  of  election  for  pro- 
tecting the  majority  interest  against  machine  or  special  interests.     It 
can  not,  of  course,  insure  a  majority  for  the  winning  candidate — no 
system  of  voting  can  do  so  in  any  proper  sense — but,  in  case  no  one 
running  is  widely  and  favorably  enough  known  to  command  a  majority 
in  a  free,  open  expression  of  choice,  it  offers  a  greater  likelihood  than 
any  other  known  procedure  that  the  winner  wifl  be  of  a  type  loyal  to 
the  majority  interest,  rather  than  to  any  machine  or  special  interest. 

f).  It  greatly  simplifies  the  supremely  important  problem  of  securing 
high-grade,  nonplace-hunting,  and  competent  elective  officials.  The 
reasons  are  suggested  in  the  two  preceding  sections,  but  this  advantage 
is  important  enough. to  warrant  separate  emphasis. 

6.  It  is  simple,  practical,  attractive  to  voters,  and  an  already 
operative  institution  under  widely  varying  American  conditions. 

SUMMARY  OF  THE  RELATION  OF  THE  PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT  TO  THE 

PRIMARY. 

So  long  as  we  retain  primaries  they  should  clearly  include  the  pref- 
erential ballot,  as  is  already  demanded  in  New  Jersey  by  all  three,  of 
the  chief  parties.  In  Massachusetts  one  already  hears  free  predic- 
tions that  the  primary,  even  for  State  officials,  is  as  doomed  as  it  is 
in  cities.  Lack  of  interest  in  the  primaries  givod  added  force  to  this 
suggestion.  Nominations  by  petition  and  the  preferential  ballot 
"would  seem  to  be  as  suitable  for  the  election  of  a  governor  as  of  a 
mayor  or  commissioner;  but  the  short  ballot  should  be  part  of  such 
a  system  in  State  politics  as  it  also  should  be  and  usually  is  in  city 
government. 

It  certainly  looks  as  if  the  way  to  mend  the  primary  is  to  end  it, 
not  as  a  reactionary  step  but  as  a  step  further  forward  to  a  simpler, 
safer,  and  still  more  effective  instrument  of  democracy — the  Bucklin 
preferential  ballot. 

S.  Doc.  985  63-3 2 


APPENDIX. 


FORMAL  PROVISIONS  FOR  PREFERENTIAL  VOTING  AND  FOR  SUITABLE  ACCOMPANYING 
SYSTEM  OF  NOMINATIONS.* 

NOMINATIONS  BY  PETITION  OF  TWENTY-FIVE  VOTERS. 

SECTION  1.  The  mode  of  nomination  and  election  of  all  elective  officers  of  the  city 
to  be  voted  for  at  any  municipal  election  shall  be  as  provided  in  this  act. 

SEC.  2.  The  name  of  a  candidate  shall  be  printed  upon  the  ballot  when  a  petition 
of  nomination  shall  have  been  filed  in  his  behalf  in  the  manner  and  form  and  under 
the  conditions  hereinafter  set  forth. 

SEC.  3.  The  petition  of  nomination  for  each  candidate  shall  be  signed  by  not  less 
than  25  qualified  voters  of  the  city  either  on  individual  certificates  in  form,  substan- 
tially as  follows,  or  on  joint  papers  to  the  same  purport: 

PETITION  OF  NOMINATION. 

INDIVIDUAL   CERTIFICATE. 

State  or  Commonwealth  of 

County  of , 

City  of , 

I  do  hereby  join  in  a  petition  for  the  nomination  of ,  whose  resi- 
dence is  at  No ,  Street,  ,  for  the  office  of 

,  to  be  voted  for  at  the  municipal  election  to  be  held  in  the  city 

of ,  on  the day  of ,  19 . . ;  and 

I  certify  that  I  am  qualified  to  vote  for  a  candidate  for  said  office,  and  am  not  at 
this  time  a  signer  of  any  other  certificate  nominating  any  other  candidate  for  the 
above-named  office;  that  my  residence  is  at  No Street, . 

(Signed) 

Witness: 

(Signed) 

Residence  of  witness: 

No Street,  — . 

The  petition  of  nomination,  of  which  this  certificate  forms  a  part,  shall,  if  found 
insufficient,  be  returned  to at  No Street, 


BLANK   NOMINATION    CERTIFICATES    FURNISHED    BY   THE    CITY   CLERK. 

SEC.  4.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  city  clerk  to  furnish  upon  application  a  rea- 
sonable number  of  forms  of  such  individual  certificates  or  joint  nomination  petitions, 
and  of  acceptances  of  nomination. 

FURTHER   PARTICULARS    REGARDING   NOMINATION    CERTIFICATES. 

SEC.  5.  Each  certificate  shall  be  a  separate  paper.  All  certificates  shall  be  of  uni- 
form size  as  determined  by  the  city  clerk.  Each  certificate  shall  contain  the  name 
and  signature  of  one  signer  thereof  and  no  more.  Each  certificate  shall  contain  the 
name  of  one  candidate  and  no  more.  In  case  a  voter  has  signed  two  or  more  con- 

*Being  substantially  sections  36-55  of  chapter  531,  Massachusetts  Laws,  1911.  Here  provision  is  made- 
exclusively  for  only  one  to  be  chosen  from  a  group.  The  charters  of  Spokane,  Duluth,  and  Nashua  show 
the  modifications  needed  when  the  number  is  more  than  one.  It  should  be  noted  that  while  this  appendix 
applies  directly  to  city  elections,  only  minor  modifications  are  required  to  make  it  a  suitable  provision  for 
preferential  voting  for  making  nominations  in  a  primary.  For  a  State  primary  the  provisions  for  placing 
names  on  ballots  would  require  adaptation  to  local  circumstances  and  for  dealing  witn  party  designations, 
so  long  as  they  are  retained. 

19 


20  THE    PREFERENTIAL   BALLOT. 

flicting  petitions  only  that  one  of  his  conflicting  signatures  which  was  included  in  the 
petition  first  presented  to  the  city  clerk,  as  provided  in  section  41  of  this  act,  shall  be 

valid.    Each  witness  may  be  any  qualified  voter  of ,  except  the  candidate 

named  in  the  certificate. 

NOMINATING   PETITIONS — HOW   AND    WHEN   PRESENTED. 

SEC.  6.  Petitions  of  nomination  shall  be  presented  to  the  city  clerk  not  earlier  than 
30  nor  later  than  20  days  before  the  election.  The  city  clerk  shall  indorse  on  each 
petition  the  date  upon  which  it  was  presented  to  him,  and  by  whom  it  was  presented. 
All  papers  constituting  a  petition  of  nomination  shall  be  presented  to  the  city  clerk 
at  one  time,  except  as  is  provided  in  section  7  of  this  ct. 

NOMINATING   PETITIONS   MAY   BE   AMENDED. 

SEC.  7.  When  a  petition  of  nomination  is  presented  to  the  city  clerk  for  filing,  he 
shall  forthwith  examine  the  same  and  ascertain  whether  it  conforms  to  the  provisions 
of  this  act.  If  found  not  to  conform  thereto,  he  shall  then  and  there  in  writing  on  said 
petition  state  the  reason  why  such  petition  can  not  be  filed,  and  shall  within  three 
days  return  the  petition  to  the  person  named  therein  as  the  person  to  whom  it  shall 
be  returned.  The  petition  may  then  be  amended  and  again,  but  not  later  than  three 
days  after  said  petition  shall  have  been  returned,  presented  to  the  city  clerk,  as  in  the 
first  instance.  The  city  clerk  shall  forthwith  proceed  to  examine  the  amended 
petition  as  hereinbefore  provided. 

SEC.  8.  If  either  the  original  or  the  amended  petition  of  nomination  be  found  suffi- 
ciently signed  and  witnessed  as  hereinbefore  provided,  the  city  clerk  shall  file  the 
same  forthwith:  Provided,  that  no  petition,  amended  or  otherwise,  shall  be  presented 
later  than  twenty  days  before  the  election. 

DATE    OF  FILING   NOMINEE'S   ACCEPTANCE. 

SEC.  9.  Any  person  nominated  under  this  article  shall  file  his  acceptance,  his 

signature  thereto  witnessed  by  a  qualified  voter  of ,  with  the  city  clerk  not 

later  than  twenty  days  before  the  day  of  election,  and  in  the  absence  of  such  accept- 
ance the  name  of  the  candidate  shall  not  appear  on  the  ballot. 

FORM  OF  NOMINEE'S  ACCEPTANCE. 

SEC.  10.  The  acceptance  mentioned  in  the  preceding  section  shall  be  substantially 
in  the  following  form: 

State  or  Commonwealth  of  - 


County  of ,  \ss: 


City  of  - 

I, ,  having  heretofore  been  nominated  for  the  office  of  , 

in  the  city  of ,  to  be  voted  for  at  the  municipal  election  to  be  held  in  said  city 

on  the day  of ,  19 ,  do  hereby  accept  the  said  nomin- 
ation, and  I  hereby  declare  that  I  am  a  qualified  voter  of  said  city,  that  my  residence 

is  at  No Street, ,  and  that  I  have  not  become  and  am  not 

a  candidate  for  any  other  office  to  be  voted  for  at  said  election. 

'  (Signed) 

Witness: 

(Signed) 

Residence  of  witness: 

No Street, . 

PRESERVATION    OF   NOMINATION    PETITIONS. 

SEC.  11.  The  city  clerk  shall  preserve  in  his  office  for  a  period  of  four  years  from  the 
time  of  the  respective  filing  of  the  same  all  petitions  of  nomination  and  all  certificates, 
acceptances,  and  memoranda  belonging  thereto,  filed  under  this  act,  but  shall  there- 
after destroy  the  same. 


THE  PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT. 


21 


PUBLICATION    OF   LISTS    OP   CANDIDATES. 

SEC.  12.  The  city  clerk  shall,  not  later  than  the  fifteenth  day  before  every  city 
election,  certify  the  list  of  candidates,  with  their  residences,  whose  names  are  entitled 
to  appear  on  the  ballot,  as  being  the  list  of  candidates  nominated  as  required  by  this 
act,  together  with  the  offices  for  which  they  are  respectively  candidates  at  such  elec- 
tion designating  whether  such  election  is  for  a  full  or  for  an  unexpired  term;  and  he 
shall  file  in  his  office  said  certified  list  of  names  and  offices,  and  he  shall  cause  to  be 
published  before  such  election,  in  two  successive  issues  of  at  least  (here  insert  num- 
ber) newspapers  of  general  circulation  published  in  the  city  of  ,  or  in  any 

different  or  additional  manner  that  may  be  provided  by  ordinance,  an  election  notice 
which  shall  contain  said  certified  list  of  names  of  candidates  and  offices  to  be  filled, 
and  the  time  and  the  places  of  holding  such  election. 

Provision  may  also  be  made  by  ordinance  for  supplying  the  voters  with  information 
regarding  the  qualifications  of  such  candidates  for  the  offices  for  which  they  are,  re- 
spectively, nominated. 

PREPARATION   OF   BALLOTS. 

SEC.  13.  The  city  clerk  shall  cause  ballots  for  each  general  and  special  municipal 
election  to  be  prepared,  printed,  and  authenticated  as  provided  by  the  constitution 
and  laws  of  the  Commonwealth,  except  as  is  otherwise  required  by  this  act.  The 
ballots  shall  contain  the  full  list  and  correct  names  of  all  the  offices  to  be  filled  and  the 
names  and  residences  of  all  the  candidates  nominated,  respectively,  therefor. 

FORM   OF   BALLOT   AND    METHOD   OF   VOTING 

SEC.  14.  Except  that  the  crosses  here  shown  shall  be  omitted,  and  that  in  place  of 
the  names  and  offices  here  shown  shall  be  substituted  the  names  and  residences  of  the 
actual  candidates  and  the  offices  for  which  they  are,  respectively,  nominated,  the 
ballots  shall  be  in  substantially  the  following  form: 

General  (or  special)  municipal  election,  city  of .     (Inserting  date  thereof.) 

Instructions.— To  vote  for  any  person  make  a  cross  (X)  in  the  square  in  the  appro- 
priate column  according  to  your  choice  at  the  right  of  the  name  voted  for.  Vote  your 
first  choice  in  the  first  column;  vote  your  second  choice  in  the  second  column;  vote  m 
the  third  column  for  all  the  other  candidates  whom  you  wish  to  support;  vote  only 
one  first  choice  and  only  one  second  choice  for  any  one  office.  Do  not  vote  more  than 
one  choice  for  one  person,  as  only  one  choice  will  count  for  any  one  candidate  by  this 
ballot. 


For  supervisor  of  administration. 

Not  more  than  one. 

Other 
choices 
(as  many 
as  you 
wish). 

First 
choice. 

Second 
choice. 

Richard  Roe                                             

X 

James  Hoe                                   

X 

X 

Henry  Poe                                                       

X 

22 


THE   PREFERENTIAL  BALLOT. 


For  supervisor  of  finance. 

Not  more  than  one. 

Other 
choices 
(as  many 
as  you 
wish). 

First 
choice. 

Second 
choice. 

Frank  Smith                                                                                      

X 

Harry  Jones                                  .        

X 

Fred  Brown                                                        

For  supervisor  of  health. 

Not  more  than  one. 

Other 
choices 
(as  many 
as  you 
wish). 

First 
choice. 

Second 
choice. 

Hiram  Black  ,  

X 

Robert  White 

SEC.  15.  One  space  shall  be  left  below  the  printed  names  of  the  candidates  for  each 
office  to  be  voted  for,  wherein  the  voter  may  write  the  name  and  residence  of  any 
person  for  whom  he  may  wish  to  vote. 

PARTY  DESIGNATIONS    EXCLUDED   PROM   BALLOT.* 

SEC.  16.  The  names  and  residences  of  candidates  for  the  same  office  shall  be  printed 
on  the  ballot  in  the  order  in  which  they  may  be  drawn  by  the  city  clerk,  whose  duty 
it  shall  be  to  make  such  drawing  and  to  give  each  candidate  an  opportunity  to  be 
present  thereat  personally  or  by  one  representative.  Nothing  on  the  ballot  shall  be 
indicative  of  the  source  of  the  candidacy  or  of  the  support  of  any  candidate.  No 
ballot  shall  have  printed  thereon  any  party  or  political  designation  or  mark,  and  there 
shall  not  be  appended  to  the  name  of  any  candidate  any  such  party  or  political  desig- 
nation or  mark  or  anything  indicating  his  views  or  opinions.  There  shall  also  appear 
on  the  ballot  all  questions  required  by  law,  or  by  this  act,  to  be  submitted  to  a  vote 
of  the  qualified  voters  of  the  city. 

DISTRIBUTION    OP   SAMPLE    BALLOTS. 

SEC.  17.  The  city  clerk  shall,  at  least  ten  days  before  the  election,  cause  to  be 
printed  a  sufficient  number  of  sample  ballots,  upon  paper  of  different  color,  but  other- 
wise identical  with  the  ballot  to  be  used  at  the  election  and  until  other  provision  for 
their  distribution  is  made  by  ordinance,  shall  mail  a  copy  of  the  same  to  each  regis- 
tered voter  qualified  to  vote  thereon. 

CANVASS    OF   RETURNS   AND   DETERMINATION    OF   RESULTS    OP   ELECTION. 

SEC.  18.  As  soon  as  the  polls  are  closed,  the  precinct  officers  shall  immediately  open 
the  ballot  boxes,  take  therefrom  and  count  the  ballots  in  public  view,  and  enter  the 
total  number  thereof  on  the  tally  sheet  provided  therefor  by  the  city  clerk.  Tfiey 
shall  also  count  and  enter  on  said  tally  sheet  the  number  of  the  first-choice,  second- 
choice  and  other-choice  votes  for  each  candidate  and  make  return  thereof  to  the  city 
clerk  as  provided  by  law. 

Only  one  vote  shall  be  counted  for  any  candidate  on  any  one  ballot,  all  but  the 
highest  of  two  or  more  choices  on  one  ballot  for  one  and  the  same  candidate  being  void. 

*  For  use  in  primaries  or  elsewhere  where  party  designations  are  retained  this  section  and  others  would 
of  course  be  modified  accordingly. 


THE   PREFEKENTIAL  BALLOT.  23 

If  two  and  not  more  choices  for  any  one  office  are  voted  in  the  first-choice  column 
on  any  one  ballot,  they  shall  both  be  counted  as  second  choices,  and  all  other  choices 
voted  on  that  ballot  for  that  office  shall  be  counted  as  other  choices. 

If  three  or  more  choices  for  any  one  office  are  voted  in  the  first-choice  column  on  any 
one  ballot,  all  choices  voted  on  that  ballot  for  that  office  shall  be  counted  as  other 

If  two  or  more  choices  for  any  one  office  are  voted  in  the  second-choice  column  on 
any  one  ballot,  they  shall  be  counted  as  other  choices. 

Except  as  hereinbefore  provided,  all  choices  shall  be  counted  and  returned  as 
marked  on  the  ballot. 

The  city  clerk  shall  then  determine  the  successful  candidates  as  hereinafter  provided 
in  this  section. 

The  candidate  for  any  office  receiving  a  majority,  as  hereinafter  in  this  section 
defined,  of  the  first-choice  votes  cast  for  candidates  for  that  office  shall  be  elected  to 
that  office:  Provided,  That  if  no  candidate  shall  receive  such  a  majority,  then  the 
second-choice  votes  received  by  each  candidate  for  that  office  shall  be  added  to  the 
first-choice  votes  received  by  each  such  candidate,  and  the  candidate  receiving  the 
largest  number  of  said  first-choice  and  second-choice  votes  combined,  if  such  votes 
constitute  a  majority,  shall  be  elected  to  that  office;  And  provided  further ,  That  if  no 
candidate  shall  have  a  majority  after  adding  the  first-choice  and  second-choice  votes, 
then  the  other  choice  votes  received  by  each  candidate  shall  be  added  to  the  first- 
choice  and  the  second-choice  votes  received  by  each  such  candidate,  and  the  candidate 
having  the  largest  number  of  first-choice,  second-choice  and  other-choice  votes  com- 
bined shall  be  elected  to  that  office. 

A  tie  between  two  or  more  candidates  shall  be  decided  in  favor  of  the  one  having  the 
largest  number  of  first-choice  votes.  If  two  or  more  are  equal  in  that  respect,  then  the 
candidate  among  them  having  the  largest  number  of  second-choice  votes  shall  be 
elected.  If  this  will  not  decide,  then  the  result  shall  be  determined  by  lot  under  the 
direction  of  the  city  clerk. 

Whenever  the  word  "majority  "  is  used  in  this  section  it  shall  mean  more  than  one- 
half  of  the  total  number  of  first-choice  votes  cast  at  such  election  and  counted  and 
returned  as  hereinbefore  provided  in  this  section  for  candidates  for  the  office  in  ques- 
tion.* 

QUALIFIED    VOTER   DEFINED. 

SEC.  19.  The  term  "qualified  voter,"  wherever  it  occurs  in  this  act,  means  a  voter 
qualified  by  law  to  vote  for  candidates  for  the  office  named  in  the  petition  of  nomina- 
tion or  acceptance  of  nomination  in  which  their  names  occur,  except  that  witnesses 
may  be  residents  of  any  part  of  the  city. 

*  If  more  than  one  official  is  to  be  chosen  from  a  group,  "majority"  should  be  defined,  as  in  Nashua,  as 
more  than  half  the  total  number  of  valid  ballots  on  which  at  least  one  first  choice  for  the  office  in  question 
is  marked  and  returned:  or  less  accurately,  as  more  than  one-half  the  total  number  of  ballots  cast  at  the 
election.  Either  safeguards  the  majority  interest  suitably,  but  the  latter  might  sometimes  bring  the 
second  or  other  choices  into  account  as  a  result  of  counting  nonparticipants  in  the  election  for  that  office, 
which  is  hardly  logical. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN     INITIAL    FINE    OF    25    CENTS 

WILL   BE  ASSESSED    FOR    FAILURE  TO    RETURN 

<IS   BOOK   ON   THE  DATE  DUE.     THE  PENALTY 

WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 

SEVENTH     DAY 


MOV  21 

9 
APR    9    1943 

SEP    1    1944 


RETURN 


MAIN  CIRCULATION 


ALL  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  RECALL 
RENEW  BOOKS  BY  CALLING  642-3405 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

WO 

CIRCULATION  DE 

>T- 

OCT  1  4  20. 

( 

FORM  NO.  DD6 


LD  21-100m-2,'55 
(Bl39s22)476 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


